The Ghost of Lysenko; the imaginary science of manmade global warming

The imaginary science of manmade global warning can now be entered into the infamous history of politicized science, a travesty which has threads in our lives today. Consider the residue of such frauds as Rachel Carson, Alfred Kinsey and Margaret Mead. Carson's invented findings and unscientific methods led to the banning of DDT, which in turn cost the lives of tens of millions of children in undeveloped nations. Kinsey's tortuously doctored "sex research," as Dr. Judith Riesman has so amply demonstrated, was not only invented to sate his perverted lusts but created scientific myths about normal and abnormal behavior which haunt us to this day. Mead, also, simply invented research to fit her idea of what the science of anthropology ought to be in order to justify her own immature and immoral behavior. Carson, Kinsey and Mead had an agenda before they did any research and this agenda governed everything else.

Questions loom regarding whereabouts of Global Warming

Despite global temperatures having fallen every year since 1998, administration sources insist that proof of Global Warming of Massive Destruction (G-WMD) will be found.
Climate scientists and officials of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have scoured the planet, searching for proof of G-WMD, but no proof has been found. With the Copenhagen summit just one week away, teams of U.N. warming inspectors have made no progress in the hunt to uncover proof of G-WMD in the last round of inspections.
Moreover, recently disclosed e-mails from Britain's Climate Research Unit seemed only to fuel lingering uncertainty over whether the Earth faces imminent ecological disaster, weather permitting. Claims of the threat posed by G-WMD were, for the most part, based on intelligence reports from the CRU.
The leaked CRU documents, involving damaging e-mail exchanges and computer files, showed that intelligence was 'sexed up' with falsified data and statistics in an effort to influence the IPCC in its march to War on Global Warming. The damaging e-mail disclosures sparked fear and anxiety that global catastrophe may not happen after all.
The new developments in the ever growing ClimateGate scandal, which threatens to further weaken Obama's case that G-WMD is a threat, come even as renowned climate expert, Al Gore, reported on the Tonight show that, according to his thermometer, temperatures in the interior of the Earth are already well into the millions of degrees, threatening to turn the Earth into a star at any moment, adding a sense of urgency to reaching an agreement at Copenhagen.
"The interior of the Earth is really hot," Gore told Conan O'Brien, adding that his instant-read thermometer, inserted deep into the planet without touching the bone, registered "several million degrees, and the crust of the Earth is hot."
Additionally, believers in the imminent threat of G-WMD cite CRU intelligence reports in which G-WMD is blamed for warm weather in the Southern Hemisphere during the Northern Hemisphere's winter months and warm weather in the Northern Hemisphere during the Southern Hemisphere's winter months. It is also believed that balmy weather in Florida can be traced to increase concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Tiger Woods's SUV.
"It's settled science!", yelled one administration source, screaming on condition of anonymity, adding that final proof of global warming will "eventually be found." Irrefutable evidence of G-WMD, central to the administration's argument for war on incandescent light bulbs, "will be uncovered but it may take time," added another top administration source, also speaking on condition of anonymity. "Is it a surprise that proof of global warming has not been found? No. Would the evil force that steered Katrina into New Orleans -- Karl Rove -- engage in a highly elaborate deception plan to trick U.N. warming inspectors? Of course. How else do you explain no rise in global temperatures during the Bush years when Rove gained control of the weather? How about blizzards conveniently occurring everywhere Gore happens to have a speaking engagement? Don't be fooled."
Expectations were raised when Obama, in a widely covered address last year, asserted that his election would be the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." One senior administration official said "those 16 words should never have been included in the text written for Obama." Not before cap and trade is even passed. But Joseph Wilson, known for exposing the administration's faulty words, told Obama in response, "You lie!". As for the author of those 16 words, the same official insisted that William Ayers has since apologized. "It was a mistake," the official quoted Ayers as saying. The White House had hired Ayers as a consultant on climate issues, having once been a Weatherman himself.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents of corny satire
"JohnHuang2"

Over at our Canadian sister site, I've documented this -farce-- from the beginning, and in my opinion there are two reports that knock the whole AGW/Climate Change thing into the "phlogiston" realm of science-- they are on page 16, but I'll reproduce them in full here:-"Politics and Greenhouse Gases "--

Politics and Greenhouse Gases

Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined(pdf) that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.

To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.

2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.

3. Invoking a "greenhouse effect" model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called "radiative forcing") which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.

In an AT article posted September 27, I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.

The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists(pdf), Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.

The Greenhouse Model

The paper initially tackles the concept of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere (vital for any discussion of radiative heat transfer) and how it is affected by carbon dioxide, which, they point out, is a trace gas. The current estimated concentration of CO2 is 0.04% by volume and 0.06% by mass. Gerlich and Tscheuschner show that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03% -- within the margin of measuring error.

The authors then devote nearly twenty pages to a detailed theoretical and experimental model analysis of the classic glass greenhouse. This model posits that glass surrounding a large volume of air allows solar radiation to pass through to heat the greenhouse surface and then selectively blocks resulting infrared energy from escaping. However, calculations show that no property of glass can adequately explain the temperature rise. Normal glass assumed in the model just cannot selectively screen and filter sufficient radiation energy by spectral absorption or reflection. Thus, assumption of a dominant radiative heating model must be incorrect.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely on referenced experimental evidence to show what is really going on. The dominant heat transfer mechanism is not radiation, but convection. Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.

If the classic glass greenhouse model is obviously wrong, then this raises suspicions about the atmospheric "greenhouse effect" itself. The authors examine definitions of "greenhouse effect" by three respected sources (the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy; the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Encyclopedia Britannica Online). They show how each uses ill-defined global concepts (such as "mean temperature"), confuse infrared radiation with heat (they're different), incorrectly describe the physics inside a glass greenhouse, and use other terms unsupported by the laws of physics.

Surprisingly, the authors find that the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work or text involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. They then attempt to fill that void. They first derive the generalized equations a computer would have to solve to calculate an average radiative temperature for a rotating smooth globe without oceans (half exposed to the sun and half not) and inclined relative to the sun (as is Earth). They show that for a globe the size of Earth, even this simple non-convection model would be unsolvable by the most powerful computers available today or for the foreseeable future -- not only because of the quantity of calculations required, but also because of the impossibility of setting the initial boundary conditions at every point needed to even begin the calculation process.

Relevant Atmospheric Physics

Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved -- even for small-space regions and small-time intervals -- because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered. The real world is just too complex.

However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for "radiative transfer," and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or "forcing" effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

There are too many different transfer phenomena (radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc.) and types of interfaces (static or moving) between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc. for which no applicable scientific theory nor ability to determine boundary conditions exists. "Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws," the authors conclude (their emphasis). "Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate."

Dr. Roy Spencer, in his book Climate Confusion, points out how man-made global warming alarmists attempt to mislead the public by claiming that global CO2 emissions total about 50 billion tons per year while failing to acknowledge that the total weight of the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. In other words, the 50 billion tons adds to 5 million billion tons, or a mere 10 parts per million -- relatively speaking, a trivial change each year.

Spencer shows how with oceans covering nearly seventy percent of Earth, water vapor and ocean currents totally dominate our global climate. He attributes oceanic and atmospheric circulation in the North Pacific as the dominant modern climate forcing mechanism. As for infrared radiation, Gerlich and Tscheuschner agree with earlier studies that water vapor is responsible for most of the IR absorption in the Earth's atmosphere. Thus, any infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide represents only a tiny part of the full IR spectrum and is affected little by raising CO2 concentration.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner state without equivocation that there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect which explains the relevant physical phenomena. They call the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases "deliberate misnomers" and a "myth beyond physical reality" and conclude:

The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

Thus, scientific support for the man-made global warming hoax slowly collapses while politicians rush to lock in massive international wealth-redistribution in its name. Those pesky "greenhouse gases" just don't behave in a politically correct manner.

And -"Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate] "--

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]

Physicist Howard Hayden, a staunch advocate of sound energy policy, sent me a copy of his letter to the EPA about global warming. The text is also appended below, with permission.

As noted in my post Access to Energy, Hayden helped the late, great Petr Beckmann found the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links). Hayden later began to publish his own pro-energy newsletter, The Energy Advocate, following in the footsteps of Beckmann's own journal Access to Energy

I love Hayden's email sign-off, "People will do anything to save the world ... except take a course in science." Here's the letter:

***

Howard C. Hayden785 S. McCoy DrivePueblo West, CO 81007

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, AdministratorEnvironmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."

It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASAGISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.

The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
A warmer world begets more precipitation.
All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn't.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

Howard C. Hayden

Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

One more nail in the coffin of "climate change?"

“The United States and Global Data Bases are Seriously Contaminated by urbanization for which NO ADJUSTMENTS are made. ... The United States USHCN version 2, the global NOAA GHCN relied on by the CCSP and the Hadley global temperatures are NOT adjusted for UHI contamination”, according to Joseph D'Aleo in Urban Heat Island Contamination (pdf). This (pdf) document states: “It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands”.

H/T: dpwozney

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1434964#1434964

Finally, a roundup of "best of the worst"-- summaries of what you need to know, from my latest updates:

James Delingpole has a great summary of the fallout so far.

ClimateGate wrapup.

Who's Who of Climategate (video)

"Hide the Decline" - the Climategate links

Death Knell to Global Warming– Renowned Statistician & Software Engineer Says Hockey Stick Data Was “Fudged”

Socialists in a Panic Over ClimateGate…to Pass UN Climate Treaty

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-its-the-totalitarianism-stupid/

Climategate: It’s the Totalitarianism, Stupid
"A successful political machine has to have monopoly control over the media, and it must be able to corrupt or coerce all the centers of power — the cops, the courts, the drug mafias, the businesses, the rackets. That’s how the global warming conspiracy operated. Global warming was a fraud, and it has now been exposed.

That little fraud would have cost the taxpayers of the world trillions of dollars, not to mention wrecking their economies with carbon taxes and penalties.

"Global Warming" would be funny if it were not so expensive

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.